I think this article conclusively refutes the closed border position in the immigration debate:
So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.
So long as government commands a monopoly over all legislation, the drug war is defensible.
So long as government commands a monopoly over all financial regulation, the fiat money regime is defensible.
Et cetera.
I’m a proponent of free trade and travel.
Fiat money and the drug war are very, very poor examples because both are incredibly costly and serve no purpose whatsoever (in fact if I were to choose a 2nd-best it’d be the gold standard, not fiat money.) The logic behind the closed borders position is restricting access to the welfare state. Of course, a better solution is to simply abolish it first.
Just the opposite: so long as a government commands over a monopoly on land, you cannot take a closed border position without implicitly assuming the validity of that land monopoly. A “closed border” position reduces to a defense of the power of the state to be exclusive with land that it doesn’t legitimately own to begin with. You’re stuck lapsing into an interventionist, nationalistic kind of reasoning in order to defend it, since you’re left with “intervention X exists, therefore we need intervention Y to stave off the effects of intervention X” and appeals to a nationalistic sense of ownership over the “nation” by legally recognized citezens.
We’ve beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won’t back down.
Demanding that the post office deliver the mail is not demanding an intervention. Demanding that it stop is.
Without the government monopoly on land, open borders activists would have to spend enormous efforts to acquire all the rights to all the land in order to allow everyone open access. With government, they can repeal all immigration limits through a single legislative act. This is what they are demanding instead of a market in land.
It’s obvious that there’s no need to restrict immigration in order to restrict access to the welfare state, so there’s actually no logic behind the ‘arguments’ of closed border advocates.
How does one restrict access to it then? Citizenship is one way that they do so, and it follows if requirements for citizenship become more stringent that it is all the more difficult to access the welfare state. And of course there are socialized goods such as roads, public parks &c. where restrictions are all the more difficult to justify, implement and enforce. So yeah, there is a definite logic behind it, however inferior it is to outright abolition.
Very very easily. If you can’t prove that you’re a so called ‘citizen’ then you’ve no access to welfare.
…I’m pretty sure that so called ‘illegal’ immigrants pay some taxes. For instance sales taxes, gas taxes and so on. I’m sure that that’s enough to pay for their usage of roads and parks…?
There’s no logic behind it. Only (bad) emotions.
That’s not necessary. I have a similar position to Stranger, and I am no nationalist.
It would be one thing if the immigrants don’t recognize the authority of the state when they move to a region. But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers.
It is never a good idea for an anarchist or libertarian to welcome statists into his territory, so that they are even in greater in number to oppress him.
I’m for statelessness. But as long as we have the state, encouraging pro-state immigration is counterproductive.
I don’t see any reason to close the borders. In fact I do see a golden oppurtunity for new recruits, I mean think about it this may be a good way to spread the movement outside of the country in a incredibly fast way. I mean these are the two general outcomes:
A. The “illegal immigrants” stay in the U.S and we have a larger and stronger movement, which, in effect makes us more politically relevant in the U.S.
B.The “illegal immigrants” are deported back to their countries where at least some of them spread Libertarian ideals with their family and friends. Thus beginning new Libertarian movements.
Who knows we may inspire the next great Libertarian thinker. And we gain better control of a tongue (spanish) in the process. Along with some new literature. [:D]
Which is what the border control advocates argue… tightening citizenship criteria.
Shouldn’t be hard for you to find out then.
Which has not been demonstrated.
Look, it’s easy. You DON’T need to be a citizen to enter a country. You enter the country as a ‘guest’ - the state issues some paper which tags you as a ‘guest’ and that’s the end of the story. As a guest you’re entitled to no welfare benefits.
It was a rhetorical question. It is obvious that if you buy gas you’re paying taxes – whether that’s enough to pay for the roads or not is an open question which also is valid with respect to ‘citizens’. Besides, as far as I know roads are not considered part of the welfare state (though of course they are mostly socialized).
Of course it has. As I said there’s no need to restrict immigration in order to restric access to the welfare state. To believe otherwise is to believe in a non-sequitur – and, as you know, there’s no logic in non-sequiturs. People who want to close the borders are driven by tribalism not by reason.
Whoa. You’re omniscient and know that immigrants come seeking the state. You’re a true individualist, are you not ? There are tens of millions of illegal immigrants and you know that they are statists – not only that but they are more statist than the locals…Your mind reading abilities are awesome…
Ask yourself something. Why would an anarchist move to America? Or Canada for that matter?
Tangential. The point is, as you have already admitted, that one can restrict access to the welfare state by limiting it to citizens, whence it follows more stringent requirements are more restrictive of access. Then again none of the libertarians arguing in favour of border controls as a second-best measure that I know of, advocate prohibiting guest workers. In fact quite the opposite, unless you’re referring to paleocons, or Ron Paul, or individuals whose policy recommendations do not interest me.
Roads are in this instance being taken into consideration too, as is all “public” property.
Which has not been demonstrated.
No, it hasn’t. Tightening citizenship criteria is, in effect, a restriction of access to the welfare state.
Because the private sector in Canda and in America is way more sophisticated than the private sector in his/her country. It’s basic economics. America is a rich country when compared to the majority of other coutries, so the standard of living is higher. People move from one place to another looking for better deals…
Not tangential at all. What it does NOT follow is that ‘stringent requirements’ is the only possible way to deal with the problem. The method I suggested is way better.
But the very same thing can be achieved without doing so, but using the simple means I outlined. There’s NO need to tighten citizenship criteria in order to restrict access to the welfare state. It does NOT follow that in order to restrict access to the WS you need to tighten citizenship criteria.
The people who want to tighten citizenship criteria do so because they are driven by emotion not by logic.
Juan, wrote a long response but it’s too personal for me. I’ll pass.